Get Fixture Usage

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description does not contradict that. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by stating the prerequisite 'Requires project context' and by disclosing what each view returns (referencing items vs saved versions with content).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three dense sentences with no filler: purpose, view-specific behavior, and a necessary prerequisite. The examples are concrete and the structure front-loads the main purpose before diving into details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does: 'used_by' returns referencing items and 'versions' returns saved versions with content. It also provides the prerequisite and use case. Minor gaps like pagination or error behavior are acceptable for a read-only inspection tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful semantics to the 'view' parameter by explaining the default value and enumerating what 'used_by' contains (mock rules, test cases, seeds, doc examples), going beyond the schema's brief 'What to read'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Inspect a project fixture') and then enumerates exactly what the tool does via two views: 'used_by' lists referencing items and 'versions' lists saved versions with content. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_fixture, which presumably returns the fixture itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives clear usage context: the 'used_by' view is 'what to check before changing or deleting' a fixture. It also clarifies what each view is for. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a full 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.